Behind the Paranormal: From Believer to Skeptic

On Sunday 2/27/11 I was a guest on a radio talk show called Behind the Paranormal. I actually would have to say that this was one of the best programs I have ever been on. We talked about philosophy, epistemology, western science, paranormal methodology and of course ghost hunting. Hosts Paul and Ben Eno asked thought provoking and sometimes very tough philosophical questions. Thought we may disagree on some topics, it’s obvious they are not regurgitating the same old recycled new age paranormal bullshit. The father and son duo are very smart and well spoken, needless to say I had a blast.

About Bobby the Paranormal SkepticBobby Nelson is a skeptic, writer, and co-host of Strange Frequencies Radio. His personal blog can be found online at www.porkrhine.com
At one time, Bobby was what could be called a "true believer" in paranormal phenomenon. Having been an active investigator of the paranormal for 12 years with several different Toledo based teams, he has examined countless claims of activity. But years worth of research and investigation proved to him that the evidence for these claims are generally lacking and, furthermore, the vast majority of so-called scientific paranormal investigators were using improper methodologies which caused them to draw both false and misleading conclusions.

One Response to Behind the Paranormal: From Believer to Skeptic

Seemed to me like they put you on the spot with some empty- talk, though I imagine the host went a little more in depth during the break of what they were alluding to in the show. We “know what we know” though observation of repeatable instances in controlled settings. Plus, I think you yourself have said in different words, that something unknown doesn’t lend credence to either side of the argument. I’ve heard a lot of believers put emphasis on what we/ science doesn’t know, as if that makes their belief more plausible. It doesn’t. The allusion to eastern thinking also bugged me, is there some form of eastern methodology that provides better evidence to the contrary or does it simply fit a little more snuggly with what they want to believe? I enjoyed the show, by the way.